IT’S ROOSEVELT ON THE FIRST BALLOT. Whew. Well, that was decidedly not suspenseful. For anyone who wasn’t listening-in, or hasn’t seen the early editions of the morning papers, President Roosevelt was renominated for a historic third term by the Democrats Wednesday night with slightly over 946 delegate votes. (He also received thirteen-thirtieths of one vote, through a procedure I’m not familiar with). The only delegations not casting votes for F.D.R. were Vice President Garner’s home state of Texas, and two territories, the Canal Zone and Alaska. Roosevelt’s nearest challenger, Postmaster General Farley, received 72 votes, plus seventeen-thirtieths of one vote. One of the biggest cheers of the night came just after the voting, when Mr. Farley, who also serves as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, moved to declare Roosevelt the candidate by acclamation.
THE PRESIDENT’S CLEVER DECLARATION. Roosevelt’s renomination looked like a sure thing after Senator Barkley’s surprise announcement to the convention Tuesday night of "a message I bear to you from the President of the United States by authority of his word." What followed made it sound as if President Roosevelt was modestly demurring any further political ambitions --
"The President has never had and has not today a desire or purpose to continue as President, to be a candidate for that office, or to be nominated by the convention for that office. He wishes in all earnestness and sincerity to make it clear that all of the delegates to this convention are free to vote for any candidate."
Confusing? Bert Andrews of the New York Herald Tribune thought so, writing in Wednesday’s editions that delegates "didn’t know what he meant or what they were expected to do about it." But according to Edward T; Folliard in Wednesday’s Washington Post, they figured it out pretty fast -- "He didn’t say no....and now the Democratic Party is convinced that since he didn’t say no, he must have meant yes." And it was, in fact, a sly move that caught the anti-third-termers flatfooted, and set off a tumultuous demonstration among the rowdily pro-Roosevelt delegates, as recorded by Robert C. Albright in the Post -- "A pause...and then the shouting and marching began. The ‘We Want Roosevelt’ chant mounted. Then came the loud cries into the hall’s loud speaker -- ‘The country wants Roosevelt!’ -- ‘New Jersey wants Roosevelt’ -- ‘The world wants Roosevelt’ -- Illinois, New York, California, etc., wants Roosevelt." In short, as James A. Hagerty of the New York Times wrote, the President’s was taken as an "implicit promise" that he would accept a draft. And so, apparently, it has turned out to be.
THE DEMOCRATS’ PEACE PLANK. The most disturbing news to come out of the convention is the strongly pro-isolationist peace plank in the party platform, which is so extreme that it repudiates some of the Administration’s own policies. As summarized by Jack Beall in the New York Herald Tribune, the plant "bespeaks sympathy for the democracies of Europe, [but] it recommends only private aid ‘within the laws’ of this country -- that is to say, within the terms of the Neutrality Act and the Johnson Act. By that use of the term it declares against government aid of the type recently given by the Administration, such as sending to Europe planes and other implements of war which had once been a part of the American defense system." Like the Republican platform, the Democratic resolution is too bashful to declare support for Britain by name, but its pledge to support "peace-loving and liberty-loving peoples" is even squishier than the G.O.P.’s words on the subject. You keep hearing that both Mr. Willkie and the President see eye-to-eye on the need for vigorously aid Britain’s struggle against Hitlerism. So why have they both so far given their opponents such a large say in their parties’ declarations of principle?
I suppose it’s in large part because, as Dr. Gallup pointed out in last Sunday’s Washington Post, so many voters ignore what goes into a platform. According to Gallup’s latest survey, only 27% of those polled believe that "many voters pay attention to political platforms today," and only 31% of Republican voters have bothered to read what their party’s resolution says. Thus, it’s a cheap concession to give the isolationists.
But at some point both candidates need to make strong declarations letting the British know in this critical hour that we’re four-squarely on their side, by name. Governor Lehman of New York has urged the President to support "a declaration to give Great Britain and other countries fighting the dictatorships all material help possible within the law." Both the President and Mr. Willkie should do so.
AN INVASION OF BRITAIN TOMORROW? The Associated Press picks up Wednesday a report from a French newspaper claiming that "zero hour" for a German invasion of Britain will come on Friday night, "if weather permits." The report claims 600,000 Nazi troops are now ready for an assault on the British Isles. The Chicago Tribune offers an insert to the story negating it as "German inspired propaganda," but the B.B.C. has also mentioned the Friday-night prediction, citing the official Rome radio.
Meanwhile, the A.P. says in another report that "Adolph Hitler’s decision for a mass onslaught on Great Britain might come any time now," but that there are "indications it would be prefaced by a ‘last chance’ peace offer." Larry Rue writes in the Tribune Wednesday of "predictions in diplomatic sources of a powerful German and Italian ‘peace offensive’ as a prelude to a mass attack on the British Isles." Mr. Rue also cites a report from the Daily Telegraph’s diplomatic correspondent that "the German attack on Britain can be expected within six weeks."
THE JAPANESE CABINET FALLS. Wilfried Fleisher writes in Wednesday’s New York Herald Tribune that the Japanese Army has forced out the cabinet of Premier Yonai, paving the way for the establishment of "a completely totalitarian state" in Japan along Fascist lines. That would probably kayoe at the outset tentative British moves, made public earlier this week, to mediate a settlement in the Sino-Japanese war. And the British offer to Japan to partially close the Burma Road’s flow of supplies to China for the next two months might be in jeopardy, too -- the New York Times says Secretary Hull has announced U.S. opposition to the plan.
It sounds like British strategy to contain Far East tensions is getting nowhere so far, and that could mean a war crisis in the Pacific sooner, not later.
No comments:
Post a Comment